The "Build"

[Numion]

What I find bizarre is the people who plot the whole character out from 1st through 20th levels and then expect to play that out.

Applies in real life, too. It's good to have a plan on how to improve yourself - like someone said on these boards earlier: the organic characters can be found working at fast food joints.

Of course you can't be sure how the character turns out, and whether you get to take everything you want, but without a plan failure is much more likely.

 

[Numion]

All the different books now are speaking a new breed of gamers that arn't, I'm sorry to say, very creative. The books are their game; or they play games that they've seen in movies.

Before you just needed the main book, and the DM needed his book, and the monster book: but you might not need that if one was able to think, and create on ones own.

However, I dont fault those who look at those things. If they need them, thats fine, and it gets them gaming. I just hope that one day they dont need it any more.

How would you classify my group, then? We play both core-only and those zillion-book campaigns in D&D. We enjoy both.

Don't be too hasty to judge.

 

[Olli]

i think the whole build mentality owns a great deal to mmorpgs. i think that is where this bad attitude originated. when u play a mmorpg (anyone, it doesn´t matter...) all u do is kill things to get better at killing things (usually called grinding) or go on quest that usually involve killing x things to acomplish, and if someone is stronger than you, you just respawn and try again...

so , no problem planning a character from level 1 to 20

and i know a good many gamers in my area who play a lot of mmorpgs and come with this mindset to the table.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Hi Olli!
My first name's Oliver, and I'm from Germany. You're not me, are you? *wanders off to interrogate other personalities*

i think the whole build mentality owns a great deal to mmorpgs. i think that is where this bad attitude originated. when u play a mmorpg (anyone, it doesn´t matter...) all u do is kill things to get better at killing things (usually called grinding) or go on quest that usually involve killing x things to acomplish, and if someone is stronger than you, you just respawn and try again...

so , no problem planning a character from level 1 to 20

and i know a good many gamers in my area who play a lot of mmorpgs and come with this mindset to the table.

It's not all due to MMORPGS*, and it's not all bad.

As someone said already: We mainly discuss the mechanical side of things because the conceptual side is easier: I envision a daring swashbuckler with witty repartees, flashy stiles and a light, but deadly blade. There. Most people manage that with no help. They can also manage to flesh out the background.

But when it comes to putting those things into RPG rules, it's not so easy any more. Will I use the swashbuckler class? Or fighter with the right bonus feats? Rogue? A combination thereof? What feats fit that concept?


Personally, I often think of the way I'll develop the character mechanically, from the beginning to the end. This might be as simple as "I'll leave him straight wizards/go into Magelord later" or be as detailed as: I'll take persistent spell at 15, quicken spell at 12th. I Prepare Divine Power first thing when I get my 4th-level spells, greater magic weapon second...."

It does not always stay that way, of course - there's always new books coming out, and they might have something that fits even better than what I have thought before. Sometimes opportunities arise, or events in the campaign change the character's outlook.

Plus, some things really take forward planning. If you want weapon supremacy, you'll have to get all the prerequisite feats, which are quite a lot. Whirlwind Attack is similar, as are tactical feats. And we don't have to go into PrC's, do we?

As long as the players roleplay, too, I have no problem with either approach.


*many men online roleplaying girls

 

[Ozmar]

Yep this is true in D&D, because other than alignment, there is no determinant of character personality or motivation. This is a shame to me because games like Pendragon have the morality axes for personality traits that really add to the game and make it a richer experience. I don't think anyone would argue that in real life, what you do is more important than who you are and your personality and connections to the world. Why should what you do be more important in a game unless your only purpose in gaming is escapism (which is fine, but another topic in itself)?

[THREADJACK]I would argue that in real life, what you do is more important than "who you are". In fact, who you are is, in large measure, what you do and how you do it.[/THREADJACK]

At the risk of boring people...

My character is Ozmarius Necromunda Wormfiend. He's a minor karrnathi nobleman. His mother was involved in some kind of dark cult, about which he knows nothing, but he was born with a bizarre growth on his back, a dark, other-worldly "brother" that has grown with him over time. His mother died when he was young, and he was raised partially by his older brother Magnus, who is very protective of him. He joined the Karrnathi military and fought at the end of the Last War. He left Karrnath in the confusion after the war, traveling with two of his comrades, a cleric of Vol named Vorik, and a warforged. His brother later came looking for him, intending to bring him home and make him pay the debts he owes to his arcane college.

Ozmarius traveled to Diamond Lake, and got caught up in investigating strange portents about Kyuss and the prophecied Age of Worms. He was captured and tortured by a faceless cultist of the Ebon Triad. The experience drove him more than a little mad. He actually took the mask of his captor, and obsessively wears it to this day.

He has always believed in the philosophy of the Blood of Vol, and fears death, and seeks immortality. An amoral person, he believes the powers of undeath are no more to be feared than the magic that animates the warforged. He's spent much of his life investigating these dark powers, and as he has learned more and more, he's become willing to take greater and greater risks. He hopes to one day achieve the immortality he seeks, and perhaps by then will no longer care about the potential loss of his "humanity".

His brother, Magnus, was killed by monsters, and he's trying to find a way to bring him back, but will probably only succeed in transforming him into undead monsters.

Mechanically, he is a 12th-level daelkyr halfblood dread necromancer. I've "optimised" him to the best of my ability: he has 99 HD of rather powerful undead servants under his command.

I play a character, not a build.

-Ozmar the Dread Necromancer

 

[Slaved]

I like builds, they let you know if the character you want to play is represented properly by the game world that it is in.

 

[Corinth]

I intensely disagree. In a story, who the characters are is always the main point. Without it, you end up with bland, featureless puppets doing everything, i.e. the D&D equivalent of a Chuck Norris movie.

Games are not stories. Who the character is doesn't mean squat; what he brings to the party--i.e. what he does--matters foremost because capable, well-geared characters are far better choices for adding to a group (and thus increasing the odds for success) than one that isn't no matter who he is.

 

[Numion]

Games are not stories. Who the character is doesn't mean squat; what he brings to the party--i.e. what he does--matters foremost because capable, well-geared characters are far better choices for adding to a group (and thus increasing the odds for success) than one that isn't no matter who he is.

In real fantasy world any adventuring group would allow only those persons to join who have skills they need. This, however, contradicts what players of D&D find fun. "I don't want to play a cleric" "Well that's what our group is recruiting since your previous Sir Heals-a-Lot died".

IMO it's a compromise. As a DM I let players to consult beforehand if they want to create a balanced party, or suffer the consequences*, so to speak. They usually don't care and make new characters in secret** and trust they'll get to join the team. Which they always do.

* consequences is nothing more than going adventuring without a cleric, for example.
** most of my players think it's cool to reveal gradually what their character can do.

 

[NilesB]

As someone said already: We mainly discuss the mechanical side of things because the conceptual side is easier: I envision a daring swashbuckler with witty repartees, flashy stiles and a light, but deadly blade. There. Most people manage that with no help. They can also manage to flesh out the background.

But when it comes to putting those things into RPG rules, it's not so easy any more. Will I use the swashbuckler class? Or fighter with the right bonus feats? Rogue? A combination thereof? What feats fit that concept?

Agreed, and anything that isn't easy usually requires knowledge about your campaign world and group dynamics that can be very hard to communicate over a messageboard post.

For the mechanical side we have a more common language in the rules.

 

[RigaMortus2]

It seems all I see nowadays is "is there a build that does this?" What happened to "Is there a concept or idea that refelcts this?" Perhaps no one bothers to post role-playing ideas anymore and thus I dont see them, perhaps no one really has role playing ideas anymore and its all become mechanics. Has anyone else noticed a severe lack of character personality and an almost complete reliance on "builds" as a substitute for role-playing?

I find it a lot easier to role-play a concept than I do to build that concept. You can roleplay anything. That is not the hard part. The trick is, finding the right combination of classes, skills, feats, etc. to actually create that concept.